What are you reading?

[Mantra]

Rereading all of Jane Austin's shit. Goddamn she is awesome.

[allegro]

Rereading all of Jane Austin's shit. Goddamn she is awesome.

LOVE Austen.

That post made me want to go read some Austen, but I think I'm going to go read lit from another female from that period, instead:

[halloween]

I promised this year would be the year I read something by Jane Austen- I never have and avoided as a teenager, which was probably a good idea because lots of books went over my head at the time. I've got three books ahead in line before Jane Austen though. Which means...I'll get around to it in April.

I'm currently reading Terry Prachett's The Colour of Magic. A great choice after finishing the Dune series. I need this sense of humor! I tried tackling a Brazilian writer from the 60's, Clarice Lispector, "The Passion According to G.H." It's magical writing, the word play is amazing but so far I need to wait until I'm back in Brazil where all my sensory inputs are in portuguese because this book is a bit slow going for me as I read a sentence ten times to ultimately figure out the freakin subject of the sentence, portuguese is so passive!!

[Mantra]

The thing I love about Jane Austen is 1) she's fucking HILARIOUS, and 2) her interpersonal and social interactions are so incredibly nuanced and complex. I've been blazing through all the books through them over the winter break (don't think I'm gonna finish all of them though, unfortunately) after reading them all a few years back, and I'm currently on Sense and Sensibility. There are certain scenes that just blow me away with how layered they are. It's strange to think about, but there's almost no other author I can think of who has achieved this level of social complexity, where you feel like you're god sitting above the conversation and observing all the little misunderstandings and hidden thoughts and double meanings as they unfold. She doesn't need action scenes, because her dialogue is so complicated that it basically IS an action scene. Really wish I could find this same level of social/interpersonal complexity within other settings/authors/mediums.

[allegro]

The thing I love about Jane Austen is 1) she's fucking HILARIOUS ... Really wish I could find this same level of social/interpersonal complexity within other settings/authors/mediums.

Do you read much Dickens? He's also from the Victorian period (natch) and I *love* him and think he has the same (if not MORE) sarcasm and wit as Austen, with really complex dialogue, etc.

This is one of my FAVORITES:

[Mantra]

Oh fuck yeah, I love Little Dorrit! Easily my favorite Dickens, although in all fairness I've only read a handful of his books (Little Dorrit, Oliver Twist, Hard Times, and Great Expectations).

I do really enjoy Dickens, but sometimes I have issues with his stuff, although I guess that is more like political/ideological nitpicking. I do greatly admire his craftsmanship, his satire, his characterizations. But I don't know, I can't say that I get the same thing from him as I do from Austen. I feel like she allows readers to look more deeply into the inner worlds of multiple characters simultaneously. I realize I'm not articulating this particularly well, because plenty of books have writing which could be described in that exact same way. I just feel like there's something different, almost something in the tone of the prose itself, that's really distinct.

[allegro]

I feel like she allows readers to look more deeply into the inner worlds of multiple characters simultaneously.

I understand what you're saying. I think that's why there are so many angles from which people view the characters; and why, if you do research on, say, JSTOR re Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice, you will find 800 different views even from the feminist perspective. Was Elizabeth a "feminist?" Of course not; she knew she needed a husband to support her, just like all of her sisters, and she hit the Rock Star Motherload with Mr. Darcy (the scene where she spies Pemberley, holy crap, ". . . and at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!" But, you'll also find a shitload of essays from the romantic perspective, showing that Elizabeth wanted to marry for love, and not solely money and a "situation," (hence why she rejected Mr. Collins), etc. Elizabeth is intelligent, witty, fun, deep, but also judgmental, snotty, prideful and prejudiced, LOL. And her whole friggin' family is pretty NUTS. I love the language that Austen uses to describe how Elizabeth sees Pemberley now that she judges Darcy differently, without pride and prejudice:

A "large, handsome, stone building, standing well on rising ground . . . in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance. Its banks were neither formal, nor falsely adorned ..."

I REALLY struggled with Dickens' Hard Times, btw. Ugh. And I HAD TO read it for a Lit class for my major, which made it WORSE. I should probably re-read it for fun without having to search for all the symbolism of the Industrial Revolution.

[Mantra]

I understand what you're saying. I think that's why there are so many angles from which people view the characters; and why, if you do research on, say, JSTOR re Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice, you will find 800 different views even from the feminist perspective. Was Elizabeth a "feminist?" Of course not; she knew she needed a husband to support her, just like all of her sisters, and she hit the Rock Star Motherload with Mr. Darcy (the scene where she spies Pemberley, holy crap, ". . . and at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!" But, you'll also find a shitload of essays from the romantic perspective, showing that Elizabeth wanted to marry for love, and not solely money and a "situation," (hence why she rejected Mr. Collins), etc. Elizabeth is intelligent, witty, fun, deep, but also judgmental, snotty, prideful and prejudiced, LOL. And her whole friggin' family is pretty NUTS. I love the language that Austen uses to describe how Elizabeth sees Pemberley now that she judges Darcy differently, without pride and prejudice:

A "large, handsome, stone building, standing well on rising ground . . . in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance. Its banks were neither formal, nor falsely adorned ..."

Right, well with Elizabeth, I personally think that she's a realistic reflection of her time and circumstances, like any human being I guess. She's a British women in the early 19th century trying to navigate the world around as best as she can with whatever options are available to her. I think people do a disservice to the book by trying to define her character with any sort of rigidness, and, depending on how far down that road they choose to travel, they miss out on being able to fully experience Austen's talent for creating such a lifelike character. The ambiguity of her character and her motivations are not some obstacle to be overcome, but rather, that's the whole point. In real life, it's very difficult to perfectly disentangle anyone's "true" motivations, even within our own selves. I think this is especially true for close personal relationships. Reading a book or watching a movie with that same kind of ambiguity helps me consider my own life and the relationships around me.

And I suppose I don't generally tend to feel that way with Dickens. He's a hilarious satirist, and he does a pretty good job of giving us a certain societal perspective, but I feel like his characters are constructed in a very different way from Austen. They seem to veer just a bit towards stock characters, although I don't necessarily mean that in an extremely critical way. Again, I like the guy. It just seems like a lot of his characters are like: the sincere and compassionate nobleman, the greedy landlord, the humble peasant, the ineffective government worker, the lazy son, the spoiled sister, etc. Not to say there isn't any extra dimensionality given to the characters, but it only goes so far. And I suppose that's necessary if you want to make satire, or if you want to clearly convey certain social/political messages. The characters need to exist as a kind of symbol. I don't think there's anything "wrong" with that type of writing, I'm just saying that I'm not particularly likely to continue thinking about the inner world of Rigaud in the same way that I might with Willoughby, because, for the most part, that inner world doesn't seem to exist.

Since I'm currently on Sense and Sensibility, I'm really appreciating the how balanced she is with her depictions of Elinor and Marianne. The two of them are so different and yet she never seems to favor one's demeanor over the other, even though there are plenty of moments when you can see the flaws and the shortcomings in their ways of being. It seems like Austen rarely feels the need to pass much judgement on her characters. Even when a person does something blatantly wrong, it's generally (although there are some obvious exceptions) done with a certain objectivity that's also mixed with a sense of empathy. So many other writers seem to put their characters on trial, so to speak, and I think after a long tradition of that, readers have been sort of trained to do the same, which is why so many people seem to struggle with simply accepting the ambiguity of a character as they are. Everyone wants to settle the matter. I myself do this a lot.

I REALLY struggled with Dickens' Hard Times, btw. Ugh. And I HAD TO read it for a Lit class for my major, which made it WORSE. I should probably re-read it for fun without having to search for all the symbolism of the Industrial Revolution.

Yeah, I liked it a lot, but I totally get that. I chose to read it years back when I was just getting started on my whole activist/class warrior phase, so I enjoyed his critique of the working conditions, the class system, the industrial revolution, etc, but yeah, it's not the funnest book to read, that's for fucking sure.

[allegro]

It just seems like a lot of his characters are like: the sincere and compassionate nobleman, the greedy landlord, the humble peasant, the ineffective government worker, the lazy son, the spoiled sister, etc. Not to say there isn't any extra dimensionality given to the characters, but it only goes so far. And I suppose that's necessary if you want to make satire, or if you want to clearly convey certain social/political messages.

A lot of that is based on Dickens' own life, though. Like, for instance, his own personal history with the Marshalsea (Little Dorrit). Or his history as a law clerk.

Right, well with Elizabeth, I personally think that she's a realistic reflection of her time and circumstances, like any human being I guess. She's a British women in the early 19th century trying to navigate the world around as best as she can with whatever options are available to her. I think people do a disservice to the book by trying to define her character with any sort of rigidness, and, depending on how far down that road they choose to travel, they miss out on being able to fully experience Austen's talent for creating such a lifelike character. The ambiguity of her character and her motivations are not some obstacle to be overcome, but rather, that's the whole point. In real life, it's very difficult to perfectly disentangle anyone's "true" motivations, even within our own selves.

I totally agree; well-said, thank you.

[Mantra]

A lot of that is based on Dickens' own life, though. Like, for instance, his own personal history with the Marshalsea (Little Dorrit). Or his history as a law clerk.

Hmm, interesting. I think I was vaguely aware that he had had some kind of relationship with the Marshalsea, but never knew it was his actual family. I've heard that David Copperfield is also supposed to have a lot of autobiographical elements, but I've never read that book so I have no idea.

Again I completely loved Little Dorrit, almost to an irrational degree. I read it some years back during an incredibly brutal winter while I was working one of the shittiest fucking jobs ever, delivering sandwiches on my bike, slipping and crashing constantly because of the goddamn ice everywhere and because I was drunk most of the time, frozen to death, depressed as fuck, just feeling like utter shit in every way. But there was this period for a few weeks where I was reading that book, and man, it was like my lifeline. I would come home, eat soup and drink tea, smoke some weed to calm my nerves, put on some ambient music, and then read that book for an hour or two, and it was like my therapy. There was something deeply comforting about it, especially the first half. Part of me doesn't want to read the book ever again because I know it just won't feel the same all these years later.

[allegro]

There was something deeply comforting about it, especially the first half. Part of me doesn't want to read the book ever again because I know it just won't feel the same all these years later.

I love your story about that book, it's so awesome when literature from those periods affect us so strongly. Anna Karenina sucked me in almost to that point, I love Konstantin Levin; Levin, of course, is Tolstoy.

[Mantra]

Ugh, I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that I've read almost no Tolstoy at all, except last summer I read the Death of Ivan Ilyich, which I really liked a lot. Other than that, I've not gotten around to reading any of the big Russians, like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, not even Nabakov. Something about them always seemed so intimidating to me, so I've been reluctant to dive in, although part of me also feels really ignorant about not knowing their stuff. I want to to read through it all someday.

I really wish I could just press pause on the passage of time, spent two or three hundred years reading all the best lit and philosophy, and then, when I'm all done, press play and continue on with my life. I got all these fucking books I want to read and I have no time for them. That's not even getting into movies, tv shows, games, or my own creative shit. Plus I like revisiting old favorites, but every time I do that it means there's something new that I'm not reading. Man, FUCK mortality, why can't I just live forever? This is such bullshit that our lives are finite. I have shit to do.

[allegro]

I really wish I could just press pause on the passage of time, spent two or three hundred years reading all the best lit and philosophy, and then, when I'm all done, press play and continue on with my life. I got all these fucking books I want to read and I have no time for them. That's not even getting into movies, tv shows, games, or my own creative shit. Plus I like revisiting old favorites, but every time I do that it means there's something new that I'm not reading. Man, FUCK mortality, why can't I just live forever? This is such bullshit that our lives are finite. I have shit to do.

OH MY GOD, I was just saying the SAME thing to my husband tonight at my birthday dinner. There is just not enough TIME in this lifetime. Although, he has mandatory retirement at a really early age and I will probably continue to work part time, maybe, don't know yet, but most people are saying "gah, retirement, what will you DO?" and I'm, like:

READ ALL FUCKING DAY, BITCHES!

I read The Death of Ivan Ilyich when I was young, loved that one, but didn't delve into big Tolstoy until I was in college.

I highly recommend this translation of Anna Karenina.

Pevear and Volokhonsky also translated War and Peace but I got about 1/4 through that one and put it down because ALL THE FRENCH which means all the footnotes. I know that will end at some point (so I am told) but it's rough getting through all that; however, I have vowed to pick it back up.

I have Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment on my shelves and To Read list, too.

Have you read any Willa Cather?

[Mantra]

most people are saying "gah, retirement, what will you DO?" and I'm, like:

READ ALL FUCKING DAY, BITCHES!

Hahah, right on.

and happy birthday, btw.

I highly recommend this translation of Anna Karenina.

Awesome, just added to my wishlist. I really like what this first customer review says:

"It is a very long book: I read a few chapters a day over a long period of time. Over time the feeling developed that the characters, and Tolstoy himself (in Levin), were people I knew -- people with whom I spent some time each day. ...For me, the important thing in reading this book was not to try to "get through" it, but to "visit" it as I would visit congenial neighbors. When I finished, I felt loneliness over loss of contact with the characters."

Have you read any Willa Cather?

Yeah, I've read O Pioneers and really loved it. Unfortunately I still haven't gotten around to reading the rest of the books in the "plains trilogy" like My Antonia and the other one. O Pioneers is obviously super cool to read for the feminist aspect and a look at farm life and whatnot, but I think what had the biggest impact on me was how the romantic relationships were handled. It isn't just like "Awww look, they finally got together. How cute." It's more like "Fuck man, life is hard and painful and short, so you gotta make this shit count! Who knows when you'll die from some horrible farm accident or disease or whatever. Get together NOW and enjoy each other while you can! This is your LIFE, for fucks sake!" In general, it's a pretty bittersweet book.

[allegro]

and happy birthday, btw.

Thanks!!

Awesome, just added to my wishlist. I really like what this first customer review says:

"It is a very long book: I read a few chapters a day over a long period of time. Over time the feeling developed that the characters, and Tolstoy himself (in Levin), were people I knew -- people with whom I spent some time each day. ...For me, the important thing in reading this book was not to try to "get through" it, but to "visit" it as I would visit congenial neighbors. When I finished, I felt loneliness over loss of contact with the characters."

Oh my god, that is SO true, I actually typed that I was sad when I finished the book but deleted that because it sounded like I was sad ABOUT the book but it was more like what that person said, above, in that I had spent so much time with all of the people in the book, I would never see any of them again and it was "over" and it made me CRY.

Cather, I read My Ántonia and I really loved it because it so fucking real and put me in touch with the reality of living on the plains during that time, what it must have been like being a Bohemian immigrant during the dust bowl and all that, Jesus Christ. I went on a train trip a few years ago through that area and I kept staring out onto the plains like I was seeing it all through Ántonia's eyes. It just showed me how fucked up this country was / is when it comes to that kind of shit. Cather was just a master of Americana realism.

It's like my obsession with slave narratives, like Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs or Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave? That stuff had a really big affect on me. It ain't pretty, but it's real American lit.

[Mantra]

Oh shit, you edited your post, lol....

Or any African American slave narratives, like Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs or Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave? That stuff had a really big affect on me.

Yup, although I read Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl very fast for a history class because I was way behind and swamped in work and it was one of my first semesters and I was kind of a bum, so it's a bit hazy in my memory now. However, I know Douglass VERY well and have read his narrative several times. I also read another slave narrative back in the day, I think Equiano? Really want to read Solomon Northup, since I saw 12 Years a Slave and loved it.

[allegro]

Oh shit, you edited your post, lol....

Welllllll ... I had added that last comment but by that point you had already responded, so ... LOL, sorry.

Yeah, I loved 12 Years a Slave, too, so I'd also like to read Northrup. We had to read Oroonoko in a college Brit Lit class because they have slave narratives, too.

The other thing that blew me away and I guess maybe it shouldn't have, I dunno, but it REALLY DID, was Defoe's A Journal of the Plague Year. Talk about REALISM, HOLY CRAP. Defoe created that journalistic style, and is one of the founders of the English novel.

[Mantra]

The other thing that blew me away and I guess maybe it shouldn't have, I dunno, but it REALLY DID, was Defoe's A Journal of the Plague Year. Talk about REALISM, HOLY CRAP. Defoe created that journalistic style, and is one of the founders of the English novel.

Wow, never even heard of this book before. Looks interesting.

In terms of classic American Lit stuff, Thoreau was huge for me. Walden was especially foundational for me as a person. I read that when I was pretty young and it had a huge effect on me. Civil Disobedience is amazing too. I have to watch myself cause I have this obnoxious tendency to go around quoting him to people like he's the fucking bible: "If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, BREAK THE LAW!" Mainly I just love his approach to managing your life and your free time and deciding whats important.

And I suppose she's a bit more contemporary, but Flannery O'Conner is easily in my top 3 or so authors of all time. Like, I've probably read A Good Man Is Hard to Find at least a dozen times. I'm sort of obsessed with her actually. I love southern gothic stuff in general, but I think she's miles above everyone else, even Faulkner (who I still love, regardless). I just love her weird sense of humor, and the tone of her writing. She somehow manages to invoke this almost biblical feeling in the way she frames certain scenes, and yet everything is sort of still and understated. She's easily the best short story writer who has ever lived, imo.

[allegro]

Wow, never even heard of this book before. Looks interesting.

In terms of classic American Lit stuff, Thoreau was huge for me. Walden was especially foundational for me as a person. I read that when I was pretty young and it had a huge effect on me. Civil Disobedience is amazing too. I have to watch myself cause I have this obnoxious tendency to go around quoting him to people like he's the fucking bible: "If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, BREAK THE LAW!" Mainly I just love his approach to managing your life and your free time and deciding whats important.

And I suppose she's a bit more contemporary, but Flannery O'Conner is easily in my top 3 or so authors of all time. Like, I've probably read A Good Man Is Hard to Find at least a dozen times. I'm sort of obsessed with her actually. I love southern gothic stuff in general, but I think she's miles above everyone else, even Faulkner (who I still love, regardless). I just love her weird sense of humor, and the tone of her writing. She somehow manages to invoke this almost biblical feeling in the way she frames certain scenes, and yet everything is sort of still and understated. She's easily the best short story writer who has ever lived, imo.

I totally agree about O'Connor and short stories although I used to really like Joyce Carol Oats. And Edith Wharton. Mark Twain wrote some great short stories. But the American short stories award for me goes to Edgar Allan Poe. (only because he's an American otherwise I'd pick Tolstoy or Chekhov, LOL)

I was more obsessed with Emerson than Thoreau. I was fucking OBSESSED with Emerson's essays; during some particularly difficult times in my life, those essays were a lifeline for me. I'm talking 10 years ago, LOL. We also can't count out Nathaniel Hawthorne. Or Mark Twain. Or Henry James.

[Mantra]

I totally agree about O'Connor and short stories although I used to really like Joyce Carol Oats. And Edith Wharton. Mark Twain wrote some great short stories. But the American short stories award for me goes to Edgar Allan Poe. (only because he's an American otherwise I'd pick Tolstoy or Chekhov, LOL)

Well, Poe's obviously great. I just recently read one by him, "Man in the Crowd," and it was really good. But I don't know, I'd have a hard time choosing him over O'Conner. They're both great, but she's just got this certain something, lol. And I've only read a few of Chekhov's plays, none of his short stories. In general, I really love short stories. It isn't just because they're easy to get through (although that can be nice, especially when I'm short on time), but I just like the minimalism of the format.

I was more obsessed with Emerson than Thoreau. I was fucking OBSESSED with Emerson's essays; during some particularly difficult times in my life, those essays were a lifeline for me.

Oh yeah, I love Emerson too! The whole transcendentalist scene was so incredibly inspiring. I've read a decent amount of Emerson, though not nearly as much or as deeply as Thoreau. I read "Nature" and "Self-Reliance," which I loved but unfortunately haven't returned to them just yet. The one I probably know the best is "Experience," because I related so strongly to it. It had a big impact on me.

We also can't count out Nathaniel Hawthorne. Or Mark Twain. Or Henry James.

Yeah, Hawthorne's great, and I came this close to writing a whole paragraph on how much I love Huck Finn but changed my mind at the last minute, lol. I suppose it's kind of an obvious book to mention, but still, I've always loved it, especially the scenes where they're just floating down the river and talking. And of course there's the famous moment when Huck burns the letter and decides to save Jim, saying "I'll go to hell." It's so moving and dramatic, but also really interesting from a moral perspective. It presents the act of caring for another person as a kind of rebellion, which it is in the context of an immoral system like slavery. It kind of echoes that "break the law" quote from Thoreau, now that I think of it.

Never read any Henry James, unfortunately. I was supposed to read something, I think Daisy Miller, for a class, but I think I ended up skipping that reading. He's definitely on my list, because I really have no clue about what he's even like or what the deal is with him.

[elevenism]

Flying through these. They're detective stories. It's kind of cool to see King take that familiar "voice" into new territory.
]

And i'm fighting the good fight with this insanity. I've never had such a hard time reading a fucking book.

[allegro]

[Bluegirl]

I always knew this thread was here and don't know why I have not come in.
The last few books I read were A Confederacy of Dunces, The Martian, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. I do not recommend going from a brilliantly written Pulitzer prize winning book to a horribly written book. It is like a punch in the face. I liked The Martian. You give me hard science that I could probably do in my lab, that is great. Make REAL science interesting. But, holy god, Andy Weir is not a writer.
I am currently reading The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi.

[SM Rollinger]

I just picked up a first edition, hardcover copy of Hunter Thompson's "Kingdom of Fear" for $8.00. Dust jacket and the book itself are in excellent shape.

I have at least one copy of all of HST published books, but im a sucker for collecting stuff. So there you go.

The other "gems" in my collection being a first edition of "Hey Rube", my "book club" edition of "Hells Angels" (with a re-pro dust jacket, I wish I had the original!), "Curse of Lono" and "Screwjack". There isn't anything special about the last 2 there, neither are first prints, but if you have seen/read either of them, you know what im talking about.

[mrselfdestruct94]

The Fireman by Joe Hill. Excellent read so far, very inventive and fun, and I'm getting a Stand vibe throughout. Definitely worth picking up if you're a Hill fan. I'm probably going to re-read his other novels once I finish this new one.

[elevenism]

Finally reading and fucking ADORING infinite jest.
@SM Rollinger , ahh, the good doctor.
his dark wit is some of the most entertaining shit i've ever read, especially Generation of Swine.

[kel]

just finished the prologue to john dies at the end. should i keep going? the only thing i can compare it to so far is evil dead 2 (movie, obviously) which i fucking hate. i picked up another one that i'll start instead if this book sucks.

[Khrz]

evil dead 2 which i fucking hate.

No, don't go any further then. In fact don't enjoy any more books, quit watching movies, don't listen to music, stop eating, quit breathing, or don't, you're fucking dead to me anyway !

​But seriously you'll probably loathe that book then. I guess.

[kel]

people have ridiculed me for hating that flick for at least two decades. i'm just not into horror-comedies, man.

on topic, i'm gonna keep reading. the writing's good.

[blake]

Currently reading The Counterfeit Agent, by Alex Berenson. It's the eighth novel in a series featuring one main character, John Wells. Good stuff, with contemporary issues, if you're into spy novels.